UNITED
NATIONS,
September 1 --
On Syria on
August 31, US
President
Barack Obama
said, "I'm
comfortable
going forward
without the
approval of a
United Nations
Security
Council."

But the
Authorization
he sent to
Congress later
in the day
cites UN
Security
Council
resolution
1540 of 2004
that
proliferation
of chemical
weapons is a
threat to
international
peace and
security.

So which is
it? It seems
to some as an
attempt to
Obama to have
it both ways.
It's like
Human Rights
Watch, eager
for access
both at the UN
and ultimately
in today's
White House,
saying on August
28 that "the
United States,
Britain,
France, and
other
countries are
assessing
options for
military
intervention
in Syria.
Human Rights
Watch does not
take a
position
advocating or
opposing such
intervention."

Unlike
even UN envoy
Lakhdar
Brahimi, HRW's
Ken Roth did
not even say
the Western P3
should bring
their military
plan to the
Security
Council. So
much for HRW
and
international
law.

The
hypocrisy,
however, is
that when it
suits it HRW
cites to
Security
Council
resolutions
and arms
embargoes, for
example on
Rwanda. From
that, some
made
assumptions
about Roth's
HRW and
international
law. But these
assumptions
are wrong.

Is
this lack of
principles
just
pragmatic? But
HRW has more
money than it
can spend.
What it craves
is access --
that is why,
according to
its UN
lobbyist
Philippe
Bolopion, HRW
refused to
provide Inner
City Press
with even a
summary of the
topics Roth
raised to Ban
Ki-moon.

On
Wednesday in
the Security
Council
chamber,
countries
filed in to
hear a
briefing and
debate about
Haiti. On the
other side of
the Council
chamber, in
front of the
Permanent Five
members'
clubhouse, the
media was
massed. The
drums of war
are beating,
and HRW is
right on key.

now the UK
says it will
present in New
York, only to
the Permanent
Five members
of the
Security
Council, a
draft
resolution
"authorizing
all necessary
measures under
Chapter 7 of
the UN Charter
to protect
civilians from
chemical
weapons."

"All
measures" is a
broad term --
just see how
it was used in
Libya, to turn
a no-fly zone
over Benghazi
into a bombing
campaign all
over the
country. So it
seems clear
that Russia
and China will
have, at a
minimum,
questions.

But
one senses
hear the game
is simply to
present this
to the P5, say
Russia and
China wouldn't
agree, then
fire missiles.
Earlier on
Wednesday
envoy Lakhdar
Brahimi said
if you want to
punish Bashar
al Assad, go
through the
Security
Council. Did
this just
mean, flash a
draft then say
it failed?

On
August 26
Inner City
Press directly
asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
associate
spokesperson
Farhan Haq for
Ban's position
on the if
missiles sent
without
Security
Council
approval (or
as some now
wanly propose,
General
Assembly
approval, even
after the
fact) would
violate
international
law.

We
won't engage
in speculative
comment, Ban's
Haq said. Nor
would he say
if Ban at
least was
asking the US
to give him
notice before
a missile,
since there
are UN
personnel in
Damascus and
Syria.

Go
through the
Security
Council,
Brahimi again
said. But the
follow up
question can
apparently be
via missiles.

Reuters,
too,
showed its
hand,
asserting as a
fact that
bombing was
good for
Bosnia, why
not here?

Inner
City Press
asked UN
spokesperson
Farhan Haq at
Tuesday's noon
briefing when
it was that
the UN
formally
requested
access to al
Ghouta -- on
Saturday,
August 24 or
before? Video
here, from
Minute 12. Video with captions, on Inner
City Press YouTube channel, here and
embedded
below.

Haq
read out a
press
statement from
August 22, in
which
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon said a
request is
being sent.
Then, Haq
said, Ban's
High
Representative
on Disarmament
Angela Kane
"stepped
forward with
the request"
-- on August
24, Saturday.

It was
granted the
next day.

Inner
City Press
asked again,
was there any
formal request
by the UN
other than
Ban's press
statement,
before August
24? Haq called
this
"semantics."
But when Inner
City Press
asked Ban's
spokespeople
to respond to
widely
circulated
press releases
about a
request being
made to Ban,
the UN says
the actual
formal request
had not been
received yet,
and so: no
comment. Why
should the UN
say it must be
different for
Syria?

How
could the UN
be so sloppy?
Or was
it sloppy?

While the
delay to
Sunday (or
Monday, when
the team got
out and said,
if this
YouTube video
on which Haq
declined
comment when
Inner City
Press asked is
not false,
that they are
not even
looking at
what type of
munition was
used in part
because they
didn't want to
put it in
their white UN
4 by 4) is now
an element in
the case for
missile
strikes, the
UN didn't
formally ASK
until
Saturday, in
the person of
Angela Kane

So the
fact that
Germany has
expressed a
willingness to
join a
coalition to
strike Syria,
without UN
Security
Council
approval, and
the Germany's
Angela Kane's
role in the
"UN's"
chemical
weapons
inspection
team should be
noted.

But by
most media
covering the
UN, it is not.
When Inner
City Press
even mentions
Ladsous' and
UN
Peacekeeping's
French
connection,
Ladsous
refuses to
answer
questions, and
some media,
including the
French wire
service Agence
France Presse
on one of
whose
management
boards Ladsous
served, have
even filed
complaints
with the UN
against Inner
City Press.

Another
major
wire service,
Reuters,
joined in the
second of
AFP's
complaints. On
August 26
Reuters based
a piece
essentially
selling or
planning for
the legality
of military
strikes on
Syria without
Security
Council or
even General
Assembly
approval
around, as
lead, a
comment by the
Council on
Foreign
Relations' Richard Haass.

(Haas
now says that
Obama's August
31 decision
makes the US
an unreliable
partner.)